May v. Heiner
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Congress had already changed that rule for later transfers through the 1931 Joint Resolution. All 46 flagged citations have been read.
46 later cases cite May v. Heiner; 46 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on May v. Heiner?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Superseded by statute
-
The Tax Court recognized that the 1931 Joint Resolution displaced May's estate tax rule for later transfers, while leaving earlier transfers under May.
Henry v. Commissioner · United States Tax Court · filed
In May v. Heiner, 281 U. S. 238, it was held that retention by the grantor of the income for life of an irrevocable trust does not justify the inclusion of the corpus of the trust in the estate of the grantor for purposes of the estate tax. Congress undertook to devitalize this decision shortly after its promulgation by the Joint Eesolution of March 3, 1931, specifically including in gross estate a transfer under which the transferor has retained for his life, or for any period not ending before his death, the possession or enjoyment of, or the income from the property, or the right to designate the persons who shall possess or enjoy the property or the income therefrom, except in case of a bona fide sale for an adequate and full consideration. The joint resolution, however, is not to be applied retroactively, Hassett v. Welch, 303 U. S. 303.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Fourth Circuit held that the 1931 Joint Resolution changed May's rule for trusts in which the settlor retained lifetime possession.
Mullikin v. Magruder · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · filed
Such a contention indeed would be fatal to the taxpayer’s case because the Joint Resolution of Congress of March 3, 1931 changed the rule laid down in May v. Heiner, 281 U.S. 238, 244, SO S.Ct. 286, 74 L.Ed. 828, 67 A. L.R. 1244, wherein it was held that a transfer of property in trust by a grantor, later deceased, under which the income was payable to grantor’s husband for life and then to-grantor for life with remainder over to her children, was not a transfer of the corpus of the trust property to take effect in possession or enjoyment at or after death, but was immediately effective. Since the passage of the Joint Resolution, however, the value of property transferred by a grantor in which the grantor retains possession for life has been includible in the value of the gross estate subject to taxation.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Overruled
-
The Supreme Court rejected May's interpretation of the estate tax provision and included a trust with retained lifetime income in the settlor's estate.
Commissioner v. Estate of Church · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
For reasons which follow, we conclude that the Hallock and May v. Heiner holdings and opinions are irreconcilable. Since we adhere to Hal-lock, the May v. Heiner interpretation of the “possession or enjoyment” provisions of § 811 (c) can no longer be accepted as correct.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads May v. Heiner and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace